RC aerial vehicles: because we don't have flying brooms

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Hobbies, Crafts, & Houses > RC aerial vehicles: because we don't have flying brooms

«‹›335 »

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

CrazyLittle posted:

Because they're in the process of making rules and exemptions for UAVs?

But that's the point, there are no rules covering UAVs right now. Sure, once they issue rules then those rules apply.

Right now the only tool the FAA can use, is to argue that all commercial drone use is inherently dangerous because they're not integrated yet.

Edit: The crux is that it appears the FAA failed to engage in a full rulemaking process, before deciding that commercial UAVs were banned, so the regulation never actually existed. http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/MotionToDismiss.pdf

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Jan 30, 2014

# ? Jan 30, 2014 18:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 16:09

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

You don't get to just say something is against the rules. You actually have to make rules and there are rules about how you make rules which the FAA has not followed yet. Policy statements are not binding unless there are actual rules/laws to back them up.

Ultimately whether the FAA is in the right will be decided by the Judge in Trappys case or the appeal Judge in the case after that. It is in no way clearly defined anywhere that the FAA can regulate model aircraft flying outside naviagable airspace.

Of course if the FAA wants to actually follow the rullemaking process correctly and regulate low altitude rc aircraft they can totally do that. It just doesn't look like they actually have.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 18:48

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

Trabisnikof posted:

Then why won't the FAA say that? The FAA is unwilling to officially state that commercial drone use is illegal. So unless you know more about the rules than the FAA, I wouldn't be so sure.

They didn't talk to "the FAA", they talked to "a guy at the FAA." It's not surprising that one guy would be unwilling to give any statement on such a controversial topic until the FAA has made a public announcement of one kind of another. Like, I really, really wouldn't want to be the random guy on the phone who shot his mouth off about the legality of drones and is quoted in a hundred newspapers before his boss even gets in the next morning.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 18:56

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Sagebrush posted:

They didn't talk to "the FAA", they talked to "a guy at the FAA." It's not surprising that one guy would be unwilling to give any statement on such a controversial topic until the FAA has made a public announcement of one kind of another. Like, I really, really wouldn't want to be the random guy on the phone who shot his mouth off about the legality of drones and is quoted in a hundred newspapers before his boss even gets in the next morning.

If by "a guy at the FAA" you mean the FAA Spokesman, the person who's job it is to be the official face of the rules of the FAA.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 18:59

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

I would think the lack of any fines to anyone other than Trappy for people that are openly and publically using drone photography commercially is a good indicator that their position is not as strong as it may seem.

They have sent about a dozen cease and desists of which several have been ignored with no further contact or pressure from the FAA. If they were confident and serious about their current position and if it was as critical to safety as they claim wouldn't they actually enforce their regulations?

It will be interesting to see what the FAA does if they win their case against Trappy. Perhaps they will use it as a test case and start fining the hundreds of people selling aerial photography services.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 19:02

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

Trabisnikof posted:

If by "a guy at the FAA" you mean the FAA Spokesman, the person who's job it is to be the official face of the rules of the FAA.

What difference does that make? If the FAA has no current rule on the subject -- and you can guarantee that it's under debate right now, so it's not like they're just farting around and ignoring it -- he isn't going to give you any statement one way or the other. "The FAA has no rule on this" is just as committal a response as "you can do whatever you like."

Would you be surprised if you phoned up your state government and asked them "hey, what's going to happen with marijuana legalization around here?" and they evaded the question?

# ? Jan 30, 2014 19:03

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

Sagebrush posted:

What difference does that make? If the FAA has no current rule on the subject -- and you can guarantee that it's under debate right now, so it's not like they're just farting around and ignoring it -- he isn't going to give you any statement one way or the other. "The FAA has no rule on this" is just as committal a response as "you can do whatever you like."

But isn't that the point. The FAA is trying to enforce a rule that doesn't actually exist. Mostly by trying to scare people.

I don't for a second think that there shouldn't be rules and regulations surrounding UAVs especially ones used beyond visual range. But the way the FAA has gone about the whole process is just so bad.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 19:07

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Sagebrush posted:

What difference does that make? If the FAA has no current rule on the subject -- and you can guarantee that it's under debate right now, so it's not like they're just farting around and ignoring it -- he isn't going to give you any statement one way or the other. "The FAA has no rule on this" is just as committal a response as "you can do whatever you like."

Would you be surprised if you phoned up your state government and asked them "hey, what's going to happen with marijuana legalization around here?" and they evaded the question?

There's a big difference between asking about future rules and the state of current rules. If a regulator refuses to say if something is illegal but everyone thinks it is illegal, that is a big sign that in fact it may not be illegal.

I actually would be shocked if the attorney's general office of any state would refuse to say if marijuana was illegal or not.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 19:15

CrazyLittle: Sep 11, 2001; Clapping Larry

mashed_penguin posted:

You don't get to just say something is against the rules.

I'm pretty sure there's no law banning the operation of a killdozer down the street if it's got its vehicle license, and yet it's not legal. You're making the errant assumption that flying is a right, or that driving is a right. There's no right to either of those things. You use FAA airspace and public roads by permission granted, not strictly by restriction of law.

Trabisnikof posted:

If by "a guy at the FAA" you mean the FAA Spokesman, the person who's job it is to be the official face of the rules of the FAA.

A spokesman is not a policy maker, and cannot make decisions on their own. If there's currently no decision or the question is under review, then "not at this time" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Trabisnikof posted:

I actually would be shocked if the attorney's general office of any state would refuse to say if marijuana was illegal or not.

No, and that's another silly example, because that's yet another answered question.

"Is cannibis illegal" is an answered question. We know the answer to it explicitly across pretty much every level of government.
"Is UAV flight illegal" is also an answered question since the FAA already made exemptions giving hobbyists permission to fly r/c craft at line-of-sight.
"Is commercial flight without a commercial license and licensed craft illegal" is also an answered question as I pointed out earlier.
The FAA has been ordered to study whether "commercial UAV flight by private parties" should be granted permission - this is an unanswered question which is due to be ruled on by 2015.

And again, Trappy's lawsuit isn't fighting against the commercial flight ban - he's fighting a fine for "wrecklessly flying over people".

CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 30, 2014

# ? Jan 30, 2014 19:48

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

CrazyLittle posted:

I'm pretty sure there's no law banning the operation of a killdozer down the street if it's got its vehicle license, and yet it's not legal. You're making the errant assumption that flying is a right, or that driving is a right. There's no right to either of those things. You use FAA airspace and public roads by permission granted, not strictly by restriction of law.

A spokesman is not a policy maker, and cannot make decisions on their own. If there's currently no decision or the question is under review, then "not at this time" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

No, and that's another silly example, because that's yet another answered question.

"Is cannibis illegal" is an answered question. We know the answer to it explicitly across pretty much every level of government.

"Is UAV flight illegal" is also an answered question since the FAA already made exemptions giving hobbyists permission to fly r/c craft at line-of-sight.

"Is commercial flight without a commercial license and licensed craft illegal" is also an answered question as I pointed out earlier.

The FAA has been ordered to study whether "commercial UAV flight by private parties" should be granted permission - this is an unanswered question which is due to be ruled on by 2015.

And again, Trappy's lawsuit isn't fighting against the commercial flight ban - he's fighting a fine for "wrecklessly flying over people".

You are really being dense about this. The whole reason Trappy is being charged with "wrecklessly flying over people" is because the FAA couldn't charge him with operating a commercial UAV, because its not illegal.

The FAA failed to actually make a rule regulating UAVs at all, they just issued a policy statement, which by law cannot restrict the actions of the general public.

The Motion to Dismiss the FAA Fines posted:

In this proceeding, the FAA uses those same policy statements as a pretext for applying federal aviation regulations to the operation of model airplanes. This approach violates the most basic tenets of regulatory law and the Administrative Procedures Act which require a valid notice-and- comment rulemaking process before legislative rules are issued. Both at the time of Mr. Pirker�s model aircraft operation in 2011, and still today, there exist no enforceable federal aviation regulations

Also your killdozer thing is both: against a number of laws, and a confusion between regulation and torts.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 20:09

CrazyLittle: Sep 11, 2001; Clapping Larry

Trabisnikof posted:

You are really being dense about this. The whole reason Trappy is being charged with "wrecklessly flying over people" is because the FAA couldn't charge him with operating a commercial UAV, because its not illegal.

No, because if they were strictly trying to crack down on commercial flight then they would have cited him for the dozens of other videos he shot, like zipping around the Golden Gate Bridge in SF, CA or around the Statue of Liberty in NY. They didn't crack down on Trappy until he was buzzing people with his FPV Zagi. Don't conflate the two concepts.

Also calling me dense when you can't keep the difference between a "reckless flying" citation and a "commercial flight" citation is pretty loving funny. I already gave you an example of the commercial flight crackdown. If you can't see the difference, am I the one being dense?

If Trappy wins his suit, all he wins is proof that he wasn't "flying recklessly". Not that commercial flight is legal.

CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jan 30, 2014

# ? Jan 30, 2014 20:31

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

CrazyLittle posted:

No, because if they were strictly trying to crack down on commercial flight then they would have cited him for the dozens of other videos he shot, like zipping around the Golden Gate Bridge in SF, CA or around the Statue of Liberty in NY. They didn't crack down on Trappy until he was buzzing people with his FPV Zagi. Don't conflate the two concepts.

Also calling me dense when you can't keep the difference between a "wreckless flying" citation and a "commercial flight" citation is pretty loving funny. I already gave you an example of the commercial flight crackdown. If you can't see the difference, am I the one being dense?

I don't think that is actually correct. What they are doing with that specific flight is saying that because it is a commercial flight then his behavior falls under the commercial regulations that includes the reckless flying regulation.

Here is an interview with the lawyer representing Trappy. youtu.be/kV0HEzQM_Uw Obviously he thinks his client is in the ok. But he does speciffically say the case is about commercial use. I somehow doubt his own lawyer would get that bit wrong.

The FAA is on record saying he didn't break any rules for his NY flight even though they didn't like it.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 20:40

CrazyLittle: Sep 11, 2001; Clapping Larry

mashed_penguin posted:

I don't think that is actually correct. What they are doing with that specific flight is saying that because it is a commercial flight then his behavior falls under the commercial regulations that includes the reckless flying regulation.

Reckless flying applies to commercial and non-commercial flight. You don't have to be a commercial pilot to get fined for endangering other people. Senator Inhofe -should- have been fined when he nearly crashed into a runway maintenance crew that had clearly marked the runway closed, or the time that Inhofe did a takeoff from a taxi-way instead of waiting for runway clearance. Just because somebody doesn't get fined or that a law isn't enforced doesn't mean that the activity is magically "legal." You wouldn't copy that floppy, would you? :filez:

mashed_penguin posted:

Here is an interview with the lawyer representing Trappy. youtu.be/kV0HEzQM_Uw Obviously he thinks his client is in the ok. But he does speciffically say the case is about commercial use. I somehow doubt his own lawyer would get that bit wrong.

I think Trappy's in the clear but not for the "commercial flight" nonsense. I think he's in the clear because it's absurd to think that his >2lb zagi presents a "considerable danger to people and property"

mashed_penguin posted:

The FAA is on record saying he didn't break any rules for his NY flight even though they didn't like it.

This actually brings up another interesting tack that I'm seeing used, which might also apply to air-show pilots. The thing you can't do under FAA regulations is "fly-for-pay." But that doesn't mean you can't charge for byproducts of the flight (which was free). That's what aerial photographers are arguing at the minimum, and haven't met much of a challenge yet. They're arguing that they're not charging for the flight - they're charging royalties for the use of their photography... which happened to be captured while attached to an r/c craft a couple hundred feet in the sky.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 20:50

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

His lawyers are arguing and the Federal Register confirms that the FAA never engaged in the legal regulatory process to begin to regulate UAVs, which have traditionally been unregulated (See the entire history of the R/C Planes). The advisory notices the FAA produced in 2007 about UAVs, are legally forbidden from placing restrictions on the public as they are only for clarifying or stating internal FAA procedures.

Read the motion to dismiss, it makes a compelling and easily verifiable (through the Federal Register) argument that the FAA failed to actually establish the regulation: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2014/10/MotionToDismiss.pdf

Yes, this is a regulatory loophole that will be closed as soon as the new rules are issued, but the FAA has been delaying those rules and thus this may force them to actually meet deadlines.

A good example of this is the fact the NTSB does not investigate deaths from R/C planes.

# ? Jan 30, 2014 21:50

tehk: Mar 10, 2006; [-4] Flaw: Heart Broken - Tehk is extremely lonely. The Gay Empire's ultimate weapon finds it hard to have time for love.

On a Trappy related note my TBS Discovery plates finally came in the mail. So far so good. Now I am waiting on my final ESCs, props, and FPV tx/camera.

My only dislikes are arm mounted speed controllers, and the etched receiver/flight controller pins on the top panel. Very tight with all the male male servo wires I have so I removed it and just mounted the receiver next to the flight controller and the satellite perpendicular underneath. I will undoubtedly regret having black arms on all sides when not flying FPV. Can't wait to fly it first person right into a tree.

# ? Jan 31, 2014 00:00

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

tehk posted:

On a Trappy related note my TBS Discovery plates finally came in the mail. So far so good. Now I am waiting on my final ESCs, props, and FPV tx/camera.

My only dislikes are arm mounted speed controllers, and the etched receiver/flight controller pins on the top panel. Very tight with all the male male servo wires I have so I removed it and just mounted the receiver next to the flight controller and the satellite perpendicular underneath. I will undoubtedly regret having black arms on all sides when not flying FPV. Can't wait to fly it first person right into a tree.

Nice frame. I've been considering some sort of discovery style frame to convert my quad to. I have a flamewheel clone at the moment with landing gear etc and want to move to something lower profile with my gimbal mounted on the front.

I recently ordered the new TBS ground station that looks really cool. I had got all the parts together to build a briefcase style groundstation but this is so much more compact. So I will probably be selling my 8" RMRC lcd and 2.4ghz lawmate vrx soon.

http://www.team-blacksheep.com/products/prod:tbs_gs_2g4

# ? Jan 31, 2014 00:50

tehk: Mar 10, 2006; [-4] Flaw: Heart Broken - Tehk is extremely lonely. The Gay Empire's ultimate weapon finds it hard to have time for love.

I noticed it uses 2.4 for video are you using a spread spectrum tx/rx? I wand to get a EzUHF but the cost is kind of limiting for the tx/rx.

# ? Jan 31, 2014 01:05

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

tehk posted:

I noticed it uses 2.4 for video are you using a spread spectrum tx/rx? I wand to get a EzUHF but the cost is kind of limiting for the tx/rx.

I'm using openlrs uhf. I have the orangerx stuff from hobbyking flashed with openlrsng. It seems great but the furtherest out I have been is 750m so far. Openlrsng is really impressive and has a great chromeapp to do the flashing and configuration. It even supports features like walkie talkie lost model beacon which is pretty neat.

# ? Jan 31, 2014 01:47

Nerobro: Nov 4, 2005; Rider now with 100% more titanium!

My helicopter is in New York today.... I might get it saturday. Then comes a build video.. So you can tell me how I did it wrong.

# ? Jan 31, 2014 08:31

ease: Jul 19, 2004; HUGE

This is just anecdotal but : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhsgOG-WX0E

Overpriced UHF systems don't really make sense, anymore.

# ? Jan 31, 2014 13:58

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

ease posted:

This is just anecdotal but : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhsgOG-WX0E

Overpriced UHF systems don't really make sense, anymore.

There is a guy in the UK that has done 20km on a 100mw openlrs setup. Its pretty awesome really.

# ? Jan 31, 2014 18:56

Laserface: Dec 24, 2004

Looking at getting a micro quadrotor as my office warfare escalates in to what I can only assume is someone losing an eye.

one of the guys has a Blade Nano QX, he suggested I check out the Hubsan Mini X4 (version 2).

is there anything out there in that size that I should consider besides those?

# ? Feb 4, 2014 08:47

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

I love my Blade Nano QX. That thing is a blast, easy to fly, and durable as hell.

# ? Feb 4, 2014 13:04

Arcturas: Mar 30, 2011

I also love my Nano QX, though my motors burn out more often than I'd like. (I may be screwing something up when flying them)

# ? Feb 4, 2014 17:06

ease: Jul 19, 2004; HUGE

I'll show off our 'clubs' custom mini quad that one of our members cut for 12 of us :

He just finished everything up and we should be getting them soon.

# ? Feb 4, 2014 18:09

Widdershins: May 19, 2007; Not even trying

Hey! That's super neat!

# ? Feb 4, 2014 20:25

Internet Explorer: Jun 1, 2005

Arcturas posted:

I also love my Nano QX, though my motors burn out more often than I'd like. (I may be screwing something up when flying them)

I saw some complaints of the same and have burnt out one motor, but same for my mQX and I fly them about the same. Not a whole lot.

# ? Feb 5, 2014 04:58

mashed: Jul 27, 2004

ease posted:

I'll show off our 'clubs' custom mini quad that one of our members cut for 12 of us :

He just finished everything up and we should be getting them soon.

Mini fpv quads seem to be the new hotness. I'm very tempted by the BAH v2.1 mini myself. It looks pretty sweet. http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2019883

# ? Feb 5, 2014 20:07

tehk: Mar 10, 2006; [-4] Flaw: Heart Broken - Tehk is extremely lonely. The Gay Empire's ultimate weapon finds it hard to have time for love.

I picked up a RVJET yesterday and finished it today. No FPV gear in it right now just a GoPro in the nose gimbal. I am fairly sure I will destroy it trying to handlaunch it solo. The thing I liked least about it was the number of areas I had to join. I am a heli guy so I don't have a ton of experience with wings and this one seemed excessive with the paneling and wing sections.

The nose has a pan tilt gimbal which seems pretty sweet

# ? Feb 10, 2014 01:40

ante: Apr 9, 2005; SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS

How much would one of those gimbals alone cost?

One of the problems I have with mountain biking or snowboarding is that a GoPro is fisheyed, which is good for catching everything, but terrible for catching anything important and display it large enough to see anything. It would be pretty neat to write some software that can pick out important objects (bikers, boarders, skiiers) and pan/tilt to follow them, without a fisheye lens.

That could be cool.

Edit: looks like that line of cameras has pretty crappy resolution (I think)

does anyone know of a good 720p or higher system that would work for less than maybe $100?

ante fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Feb 10, 2014

# ? Feb 10, 2014 05:36

Sagebrush: Feb 26, 2012

HobbyKing has simple 2-axis servo gimbal hardware for like $20 (Add two servos for another 20 bucks and you're good). Or if you have a friend with a 3D printer, there are zillions of them on Thingiverse: http://www.thingiverse.com/search/page:1?q=gimbal&sa=

Then you just put whatever camera you want on the plate and away you go.

For tracking objects you'd probably want one of the self-stabilizing brushless gimbal setups though. They do a way better job of keeping the camera steady, which would be a prerequisite to getting any sort of reliable image processing going. Also a GoPro doesn't have a video-out that can feed directly into a computer but you probably knew that already.

The bigger problem would be the software, I think. If you had a fixed platform, and you basically had a white background, visual flow to pick out moving colored objects would be pretty simple. Start doing things like moving the platform, or trying to decide which of several moving objects to focus on...that's hard.

# ? Feb 10, 2014 05:44

ante: Apr 9, 2005; SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS

I wouldn't want to use a GoPro because of the wide-angle lens. A much more typical focal length would be better.

For snowsports, image processing would be cake, just follow everything not-white. Biking would be much trickier, but I guess it would be doable to mount the gimbal to the handlebars of the follow-bike, and put a ping-pong ball on the tail of the lead bike.

# ? Feb 10, 2014 05:56

tehk: Mar 10, 2006; [-4] Flaw: Heart Broken - Tehk is extremely lonely. The Gay Empire's ultimate weapon finds it hard to have time for love.

If anyone is looking for a pair of Cinemizer fpv goggles fpvplastics is selling refurbished ones for 135 EURO. Cost me $260 for the goggles and his ski mask conversion shipped just now. They have another pair left that I was tempted to pickup to trade for other gear, but I figured I give a heads up here first. Update when I get them.

tehk fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Feb 10, 2014

# ? Feb 10, 2014 12:28

i own every Bionicle: Oct 23, 2005; cstm ttle? kthxbye

ease posted:

I'll show off our 'clubs' custom mini quad that one of our members cut for 12 of us :

He just finished everything up and we should be getting them soon.

I will probably be flying with the owner of that quad on Friday, definitely need to give it a try. That thing looks awesome.

I got out to a frozen lake this weekend and had a blast.

Edit: video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WqLdl0N3g

i own every Bionicle fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Feb 10, 2014

# ? Feb 10, 2014 17:58

ease: Jul 19, 2004; HUGE

With Jason? Tell him ease says hi.

# ? Feb 10, 2014 23:26

darknrgy: Jul 26, 2003; ...wait come back

Wojcigitty posted:

Edit: video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3WqLdl0N3g

Daaaaaamn! Nice flying. I have EF's 48" Edge 540T coming in the mail. And I'm waiting on one more part before I'm done with my HK 51" Slick. It's going to be a great year.

# ? Feb 11, 2014 03:40

tehk: Mar 10, 2006; [-4] Flaw: Heart Broken - Tehk is extremely lonely. The Gay Empire's ultimate weapon finds it hard to have time for love.

Awesome video. Makes me very tempted to get into 3d planes but I suspect having a hard time picking it up since I'm heavy into 3d helis again and the muscle memory has to be so different.

How accurate are 3d planes in Real Flight and Phoenix?

# ? Feb 11, 2014 04:23

Vitamin J: Aug 16, 2006; God, just tell me to shut up already. I have a clear anti-domestic bias and a lack of facts.

tehk posted:

I picked up a RVJET yesterday and finished it today. No FPV gear in it right now just a GoPro in the nose gimbal. I am fairly sure I will destroy it trying to handlaunch it solo. The thing I liked least about it was the number of areas I had to join. I am a heli guy so I don't have a ton of experience with wings and this one seemed excessive with the paneling and wing sections.

The nose has a pan tilt gimbal which seems pretty sweet

That kit is awesome isn't it? I couldn't believe the quality of the foam molding. Did you build it so the wings are removable?

Don't worry too much about crashing, as long as they go in wings level then it'll survive most crashes pretty drat well. The way it distributes the shock spreads it out and keeps from tearing the foam.

A bungee launcher is a great investment for a wing, especially one like the RVJet with the PT on the front. Makes it super easy to launch every time:
http://fliteevolution.com/product/complete-bungee-launch-kit/

# ? Feb 11, 2014 06:17

i own every Bionicle: Oct 23, 2005; cstm ttle? kthxbye

ease posted:

With Jason? Tell him ease says hi.

Will do.

darknrgy posted:

Daaaaaamn! Nice flying. I have EF's 48" Edge 540T coming in the mail. And I'm waiting on one more part before I'm done with my HK 51" Slick. It's going to be a great year.

Thanks. You are going to love the EF Edge.

tehk posted:

Awesome video. Makes me very tempted to get into 3d planes but I suspect having a hard time picking it up since I'm heavy into 3d helis again and the muscle memory has to be so different.

How accurate are 3d planes in Real Flight and Phoenix?

I don't have a lot of time on Phoenix but the planes in Real Flight 7 are a bit too easy. Still a good practice tool though. If you want to try 3D with airplanes get a foamy from Twisted Hobbys: inexpensive, fly great, and are very durable. You can do it with a cheaper plane but just like helis, if you go cheap on your first one you will have a much harder time than if you get something worthwhile. Muscle memory is very different from helis but the mind set is the same...practice until you can do it. I'm kind of in the same boat with helis, I have a nice 450 and trying to progress and it's a totally different skill set versus planes. If you have been able to progress with heli flying then you will be able to progress with 3D planes in the same way. The people who expect to be able to go out and fly hard 3D on their third flight are the ones who are disappointed.

# ? Feb 11, 2014 16:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 27, 2024 16:09

darknrgy: Jul 26, 2003; ...wait come back

tehk posted:

Awesome video. Makes me very tempted to get into 3d planes but I suspect having a hard time picking it up since I'm heavy into 3d helis again and the muscle memory has to be so different.

How accurate are 3d planes in Real Flight and Phoenix?

What I've found is that every trick I have learned to do in Phoenix - harriers, rolling harriers, hover, etc - I've been able to do on a real plane, but it looks super messy until I practice it a lot on the real plane. There's something not quite right with both simulators but regardless they are very good learning tools. I also met some good folks in the online feature and we get together on skype and talk poo poo, so it's also a form of entertainment. Other than that, everything that Wojcigitty said. Look for EPP foam.

# ? Feb 11, 2014 18:47

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Hobbies, Crafts, & Houses > RC aerial vehicles: because we don't have flying brooms

«‹›335 »